stock-channel.net - Aktien Links Stocks Rohstoffe Trading Handel Exchange
stock-channel.net - The Art Of Trading Home Analysen IR-Center Finanznews Finanzlinks Mediathek Diskussion Kontakt

Zurück   stock-channel.net - Das Finanzportal > Zeitgeschehen
Benutzername
Kennwort
FAQ Benutzerliste Kalender Foren als gelesen markieren Reload
Aktuelle Uhrzeit 09:30

Antwort Gehe zum letzten Beitrag
 
Themen-Optionen
Alt 13.05.2006, 11:46   #16
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Standard

Buchempfehlungen zur Wissenserweiterung:

- "Technische Mechanik (Kinematik-Kinetik-Schwingungen-Festigkeitslehre)" , ISBN 3-446-19605-6

- "Engineering Mechanics: Statics", ISBN 0-132-21500-4

- irgendein Physikbuch der Oberstufe

syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.05.2006, 12:59   #17
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Standard

World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects


Height: 1,368 and 1,362 feet (417 and 415 meters)
Owners: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
(99 year leased signed in April 2001 to groups including Westfield America and Silverstein Properties)
Architect: Minoru Yamasaki, Emery Roth and Sons consulting
Engineer: John Skilling and Leslie Robertson of Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson
Ground Breaking: August 5, 1966
Opened: 1970-73; April 4, 1973 ribbon cutting
Destroyed: Terrorist attack, September 11, 2001


The Structural System





Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely, and the relationship between the towers' design and structure is clear. Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.

Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings' high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.

(Taken from www.skyscraper.org)

The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures."

Taken from www.greatbuildings.com


Typical Floor Plan of the World Trade Center

A perimeter of closely spaced columns, with an internal lift core. The floors were supported by a series of light trusses on rubber pads, which spanned between the outer columns and the lift core.


Why Did It Collapse?





Tim Wilkinson, Lecturer in Civil Engineering

(This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent changes) on one possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice.)


The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.

After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally.

It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.


Modern structures are designed to resist fire for a specific length of time. Safety features such as fire retarding materials and sprinkler systems help to contain fires, help extinguish flames, or prevent steel from being exposed to excessively high temperatures. This gives occupants time to escape and allow fire fighters to extinguish blazes, before the building is catastrophically damaged.

It is possible that the blaze, started by jet fuel and then engulfing the contents of the offices, in a highly confined area, generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those anticipated in a typical office fire. These conditions may have overcome the building's fire defences considerably faster than expected. It is likely that the water pipes that supplied the fire sprinklers were severed by the plane impact, and much of the fire protective material, designed to stop the steel from being heated and losing strength, was blown off by the blast at impact.

Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.

(US readers note: storey is the Australian/English spelling of story)


Sydney Morning Herald graphic adapted from the information on this page.

The only evidence so far are photographs and television footage. Whether failure was initiated at the perimeter columns or the core is unknown. The extent to which the internal parts were damaged during the collision may be evident in the rubble if any forensic investigation is conducted. Since the mass of the combined towers is close to 1000000 tons, finding evidence will be an enormous task.


Perimeter columns, several storeys high, and still linked together, lie amongst all the debris on the ground.


This photograph shows the south tower just as it is collapsing. It is evident that the building is falling over to the left. The North Tower collapsed directly downwards, on top of itself. The same mechanism of failure, the combination of impact and subsequent fire damage, is the likely cause of failure of both towers. However, it is possible that a storey on only one side of the South Tower initially collapsed, resulting in the "skewed" failure of the entire tower.

While the ways the two towers fell were slightly different, the basic cause is similar for both - a large number of columns were destroyed on impact, and the remaining structure was gradually weakened by the heat of the fire. Not much significance should be taken from the fact that one tower fell in 45 minutes and the other in 90 minutes.

The gigantic dynamic impact forces caused by the huge mass of the falling structure landing on the floors below is very much greater than the static load they were designed to resist.


Other Theories?





This section added 14 January 2006

This website generates many queries from people in response to some of the other theories that are put forward relating to the collapse - namely that it was a controlled explosion.

The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence.

However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views.

The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.

There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.

The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.

What about World Trade Center 7?
I have not studied WTC in any great detail and cannot offer any theories on its collapse mechanism. In the chaos of the day, little attention was paid to WTC7, so there is less evidence available on the damage it sustained before it collapsed. However, some questions that you may want to ponder ...
* While it did not receive any direct impact form the planes, how much debris hit at as the main towers collapsed and what damage did it cause?
* To what extent (if any) did the shock or vibrations caused by the collapse of WTC1 & 2 affect the integrity of WTC7?
* Did any unseen damage to the WTC7 foundations occur in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?
* Did any of the fire suppression systems in WTC7 function?


The author respect people's right to question theories, but at the present time the author does not believe there is enough evidence for him to change his views on this incident.


http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.05.2006, 13:12   #18
Förster
*****
 
Benutzerbild von Förster
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 58.581
Standard

..... direkt beim Einsturz schon alles pulverisiert.




"Torre Windsor" Gebäude in Madrid
.


Kabelbrand im 21. Stock, dass Feuer fraß sich 34 Stockwerke hoch, komplett bis zum Dach. Dauer des Brands: annähernd 24 Stunden.
Einsturz? nö. waren ja keine Islamisten am Werk.

Wenn Stahl keine Hitze aushält, wie kann dann das vorkommen:








WTC bricht oben ein, dreht sich weg, während alles darunter liegende
feinsäuberlich zusammenfallt. joooo
__________________
Zur Chartshow
Förster ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Förster die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.05.2006, 13:16   #19
Förster
*****
 
Benutzerbild von Förster
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 58.581
Standard

was sagt die Technische Mathematik eigentlich zu WTC 7 ?
__________________
Zur Chartshow
Förster ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Förster die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.05.2006, 13:18   #20
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Standard

Tschuldigung, aber du hast gerade bewiesen, dass du rein gar nix vom vorhergehenden Artikel gelesen oder verstanden hast. Dein kleines Bildchen rechts zeigt ganz klar eine konventionelle Bautechnik. Und es ist ein klassisches Feuer, ohne jeden Einschlag einer gewaltigen Masse.

Nochmals tschuldigung, aber da erübrigt sich jede weitere Diskussion. Was nicht sein darf, kann nicht sein, selbst wenn's Naturgesetze dazu gibt die noch kein Mensch abändern konnte.

sl hat den passenden Spruch unter seinen Post's
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.05.2006, 13:24   #21
Förster
*****
 
Benutzerbild von Förster
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 58.581
Standard

du hast null Argumente, für eine Diskussion. stellst Artikel rein, die
für dich wohl richtig sind, und predigst die offizielle Variante als
Dogma.

was ist mit WTC 7 ?
__________________
Zur Chartshow
Förster ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Förster die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.05.2006, 14:07   #22
Förster
*****
 
Benutzerbild von Förster
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 58.581
Standard




http://www.dbg.rt.bw.schule.de/lehr...ff/freifall.htm

Zitat:
Jeder Skydiver sagt, er befinde sich zwischen dem Absprung vom Flugzeug und dem Öffnen des Schirms im freien Fall. Für den Physiker
dagegen ist der freie Fall eine Fallbewegung nur unter dem Einfluss der Schwerkraft, also ohne weitere äußere Einwirkungen wie Reibung,
insbesondere Luftwiderstand. Vom Standpunkt des Physikers aus führen Skydiver also keinen freien Fall aus - es sei denn, sie sprängen im Vakuum.

WTC, 410 Meter Höhe, Crash 9,4 Sekunden.


WTC:
200.000 Tonnen Stahl und 425.000 Kubikmeter Beton verursachten keinerlei Reibung.
__________________
Zur Chartshow
Förster ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Förster die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.05.2006, 14:47   #23
Förster
*****
 
Benutzerbild von Förster
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 58.581
Standard

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...059923762628848

9/11 Film

31. Min. WTC 7

ab 38. Min sprechen Augenzeugen, Feuerwehrleute und Überlebende aus dem
WTC von Explosionen - live auf CNN, Fox, NBC etc.
die Aufnahmen sind bestimmt Spekulation, ohne Diskussionsgrundlage,
mathematisch unwissend, ungelesen, frei erfunden. VT eben
__________________
Zur Chartshow
Förster ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Förster die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.05.2006, 16:08   #24
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Standard

Dir kann man wirklich nicht mehr helfen, nicht dass es schon das 5.letzte Post ein Lacher an sich ist, nun folgt gleich 3fache Bestätigung dass du eben weder den Artikel gelesen noch kapiert hast.Übrigens, er ist aus Australien, Uni Sydney nicht aus den USA. Von einem Statiker, der wohl lieber Fakten als irgendwelche kruden Theorien aus dem Internet hat.

btw, der Schuttberg war 35 Meter hoch, darauf fiel der "letzte Stein" vom Top her. Und schon stimmt deine Höhe nicht mehr, um fast 10%. Und da kommst du mit Hundertstelsekunden ? 1+1 zusammenzählen.. aber das nur am Rand .....
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.05.2006, 19:34   #25
Förster
*****
 
Benutzerbild von Förster
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 58.581
Standard

Uni Sydney
dann muss es stimmen.
__________________
Zur Chartshow
Förster ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Förster die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 15.05.2006, 09:04   #26
schloss
Großmeister und Erzmagier
 
Benutzerbild von schloss
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Ort: Planet Erde
Beiträge: 18.701
Standard

Ich gebe syr Recht in dem Punkt, dass es eigentlich viel wichtiger ist zu wissen, warum die Türme eingestürzt sind, wem es nutzt etc. etc. als das exakte "Wie?" zu beantworten.

Aber das Festhalten an der offiziellen Version ist doch wohl mehr als blauäugig.

Lassmer Fallgeschwindigkeit, Sprengstoff, Kerosin mal außen vor...

Was ist mit WTC7 ??? Hallo? Schweigen im Walde.
Was ist mit den Triebwerken im Pentagon?? Meinetwegen auch mit Werkstoffkundlichen Beweisen... ....nix da...

Wer nicht sehen will, der sieht auch nicht

Das ist aber der Punkt an dem sich die Geister scheiden....weiß man lediglich, wer der Übeltäter war und wem es nutzte (schon wichtig)...und lässt sie dennoch gewähren und lässt ihre Lügen unbeantwortet von den fressen (und akzeptiert sie damit quasi selbst, trotz holpriger Zufälle en masse), dann akzeptiert man auch, WAS DIE DENEN ES NUTZTE NOCH SO VORHABEN!
Denn nur eine massive Offenlegung der Lügen könnte die Menschen aufwachen lassen, eine Offenlegung der Lügen gibt es aber nur, wenn die "Holprigkeiten" Stück für Stück zusammengelegt werden und das Puzzle der seltsamen Zufälle ein denkbares Szenario ergibt, der massive Glaube an offizielle "Beweise" (mit der umgekehrten Methode: jede Holprigkeit wird mit wissenschaftlichen, naja, Ausführungen als theoretisch möglich erklärt) dagegen wird die Herde auf die globale Schlachtbank führen...aber toll, wir haben ja gewusst wem es nutzt

PS: Gehen wirs doch mal anders an syr. Ist es rein theoretisch möglich, zwei Häuser wie das WTC und das WTC7 mit einer kontrollierten Sprengung im bekannten Zeitraum so hinzukriegen, wie wir das gesehen haben??? Ist es oder ist es nicht??
Und nun nenne mir die Holprigkeiten, die es bei diesem Szenario gibt!
Die mögliche Realisierung und wieviel das kosten würde, hat der Besitzer übrigens schwarz auf weiß als Kostenvoranschlag, ist also kein Stolperstein.

Ist es denkbar, dasselbe hinzukriegen, auch wenn oder trotzdem in jeden Turm ein Flugzeug fliegt als optische Zugabe??....fürs WTC7 hats mit den Flugzeugen nicht gereicht, seis drum??

Und nun tritt von beiden Versionen ein Schritt zurück, betrachte Dir, was in der Welt so abgeht seit diesem Tag, und was davon mit Sicherheit so vorher geplant war, aber ohne WTC nie hätte durchgeführt werden können....gut? ....Na dann: Welche der beiden Varianten erscheint Dir nun plausibler?
__________________
Man muß das Wahre immer wiederholen, weil auch der Irrtum um uns her immer wieder gepredigt wird und zwar nicht von einzelnen, sondern von der Masse, in Zeitungen und Enzyklopädien, auf Schulen und Universitäten. Überall ist der Irrtum obenauf, und es ist ihm wohl und behaglich im Gefühl der Majorität, die auf seiner Seite ist.
-Goethe

schloss ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser schloss die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 17.05.2006, 14:14   #27
schloss
Großmeister und Erzmagier
 
Benutzerbild von schloss
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Ort: Planet Erde
Beiträge: 18.701
Standard

Dr.-Ing. Jeff King, Professor am Massachussets Institute for Technology
(also mit mindestens Physik-Leistungskursniveau)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...599063248&q=wtc

erst komplett angucken, dann rummotzen!

(Danke förster für den Link)



und noch ne Denkhilfe, für die die wissen, dass es ein inside job war, aber nicht so richtig weiterdenken WOLLEN.

Konnte man sich sicher sein, dass die Türme durch die Flugzeuge ALLEINE einstürzen würden?? Wohl, nicht... Wären die Türme aber nicht eingestürzt...Würden da heute noch die angekokelten Ruinen stehen, oder hätte man das Gebäude NACHTRÄGLICH sprengen müssen? Na??

Wenn es also ein inside job war....warum also abwarten?
__________________
Man muß das Wahre immer wiederholen, weil auch der Irrtum um uns her immer wieder gepredigt wird und zwar nicht von einzelnen, sondern von der Masse, in Zeitungen und Enzyklopädien, auf Schulen und Universitäten. Überall ist der Irrtum obenauf, und es ist ihm wohl und behaglich im Gefühl der Majorität, die auf seiner Seite ist.
-Goethe

schloss ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser schloss die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 18.05.2006, 12:31   #28
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Standard



The 9/11 Story That Got Away

By Rory O'Connor and William Scott Malone, AlterNet
Printed on May 18, 2006

On Oct. 12, 2000, the guided missile destroyer USS Cole pulled into harbor for refueling in Aden, Yemen. Less than two hours later, suicide bombers Ibrahim al-Thawr and Abdullah al-Misawa approached the ship's port side in a small inflatable craft laden with explosives and blew a 40-by-40-foot gash in it, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. The attack on the Cole, organized and carried out by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida terrorist group, was a seminal but still murky and largely misunderstood event in America's ongoing "Long War."

Two weeks prior, military analysts associated with an experimental intelligence program known as ABLE DANGER had warned top officials of the existence of an active Al Qaida cell in Aden, Yemen. And two days before the attack, they had conveyed "actionable intelligence" of possible terrorist activity in and around the port of Aden to Gen. Pete Schoomaker, then commander in chief of the U.S. Special Operation Command (SOCOM).

The same information was also conveyed to a top intelligence officer at the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), headed by the newly appointed Gen. Tommy Franks. As CENTCOM commander, Franks oversaw all U.S. armed forces operations in a 25-country region that included Yemen, as well as the Fifth Fleet, to which the Cole was tasked. It remains unclear what action, if any, top officials at SOCOM and CENTCOM took in response to the ABLE DANGER warnings about planned Al Qaida activities in Aden harbor.

None of the officials involved has ever spoken about the pre-attack warnings, and a post-attack forensic analysis of the episode remains highly classified and off-limits within the bowels of the Pentagon. Subsequent investigations exonerated the Cole's commander, Kirk Lippold, but Lippold's career has been ruined nonetheless. He remains in legal and professional limbo, with a recommended promotion and new command held up for the past four years by political concerns and maneuvering.

Meanwhile, no disciplinary action was ever taken against any SOCOM or CENTCOM officials. Schoomaker was later promoted out of retirement to chief of staff, U.S. Army, and Franks went on to lead the combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Enter Judith Miller, the Pulitzer Prize-winning ex-New York Times reporter at the center of the ongoing perjury and obstruction of justice case involving former top White House official I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. Miller spent 85 days in jail before finally disclosing that Libby was the anonymous source who confirmed to her that Valerie Plame was a CIA official, although Miller never wrote a story about Plame.

Now, in an exclusive interview, Miller reveals how the attack on the Cole spurred her reporting on Al Qaida and led her, in July 2001, to a still-anonymous top-level White House source, who shared top-secret NSA signals intelligence (SIGINT) concerning an even bigger impending Al Qaida attack, perhaps to be visited on the continental United States.

Ultimately, Miller never wrote that story either. But two months later -- on Sept. 11 -- Miller and her editor at the Times, Stephen Engelberg, both remembered and regretted the story they "didn't do."


Interview with Judith Miller:

"I was working on a special project in 2000-2001 -- trying to do a series on where Al Qaida was, who Al Qaida was, and what kind of a threat it posed to the United States. In the beginning I thought it was going to be pretty straightforward, but it turned out to be anything but. And it took me a long, long time, and a lot of trips to the Middle East, and a lot of dead ends, before I finally understood how I could tell the story to the American people. It was a long-term investigative piece, which meant that for the most part, I didn't write articles on specific individual attacks -- I was working the story …

"I was fairly persuaded that the attack on the Cole was an Al Qaida operation, based on the sources that I was talking to, because I had no independent information, obviously. The people that I was covering ardently believed that Al Qaida was behind a lot of these attacks on American forces and Americans throughout the Middle East that we were beginning to see. At the time there was still a fair amount of debate and a fair amount of resistance to that thesis within the intelligence community, as it's so-called. But from the get go, I think the instinctive reaction of the people I was covering was that this was an Al Qaoda operation. So I started looking at the attack on the Cole as an example of Al Qaida terrorism.

"I learned that the Al Qaida Cole attack was not exactly a hugely efficient operation, and I learned later on that there had been an earlier attempt to take out the Cole or another American ship that had floundered badly because of poor Al Qaida training. Because of incidents like that -- you know, overloading a dinghy that was supposed to go have gone out to the ship and blow it up, so that the dinghy would sink -- people tended to discount Al Qaida. They said, 'Oh, they are just a bunch of amateurs." But I'd never thought that. I never believed that. And the people I was covering didn't think that …

"I had begun to hear rumors about intensified intercepts and tapping of telephones. But that was just vaguest kind of rumors in the street, indicators … I remember the weekend before July 4, 2001, in particular, because for some reason the people who were worried about Al Qaida believed that was the weekend that there was going to be an attack on the United States or on a major American target somewhere. It was going to be a large, well-coordinated attack. Because of the July 4 holiday, this was an ideal opportunistic target and date for Al Qaida.

My sources also told me at that time that there had been a lot of chatter overheard -- I didn't know specifically what that meant -- but a lot of talk about an impending attack at one time or another. And the intelligence community seemed to believe that at least a part of the attack was going to come on July 4. So I remember that, for a lot of my sources, this was going to be a 'lost' weekend. Everybody was going to be working; nobody was going to take time off. And that was bad news for me, because it meant I was also going to be on stand-by, and I would be working too.

"I was in New York, but I remember coming down to D.C. one day that weekend, just to be around in case something happened … Misery loves company, is how I would put it. If it were going to be a stress-filled weekend, it was better to do it together. It also meant I wouldn't have trouble tracking people down -- or as much trouble -- because as you know, some of these people can be very elusive.

"The people in the counter-terrorism (CT) office were very worried about attacks here in the United States, and that was, it struck me, another debate in the intelligence community. Because a lot of intelligence people did not believe that Al Qaida had the ability to strike within the United States. The CT people thought they were wrong. But I got the sense at that time that the counter-terrorism people in the White House were viewed as extremist on these views.

"Everyone in Washington was very spun-up in the CT world at that time. I think everybody knew that an attack was coming -- everyone who followed this. But you know you can only 'cry wolf' within a newspaper or, I imagine, within an intelligence agency, so many times before people start saying there he goes -- or there she goes -- again!

"Even that weekend, there was lot else going on. There was always a lot going on at the White House, so to a certain extent, there was that kind of 'cry wolf' problem. But I got the sense that part of the reason that I was being told of what was going on was that the people in counter-terrorism were trying to get the word to the president or the senior officials through the press, because they were not able to get listened to themselves.

"Sometimes, you wonder about why people tell you things and why people … we always wonder why people leak things, but that's a very common motivation in Washington. I remember once when I was a reporter in Egypt, and someone from the agency gave me very good material on terrorism and local Islamic groups.

"I said, 'Why are you doing this? Why are you giving this to me?' and he said, 'I just can't get my headquarters to pay attention to me, but I know that if it's from the New York Times, they're going to give it a good read and ask me questions about it.' And there's also this genuine concern about how, if only the president shared the sense of panic and concern that they did, more would be done to try and protect the country.

"This was a case wherein some serious preparations were made in terms of getting the message out and responding, because at the end of that week, there was a sigh of relief. As somebody metaphorically put it: 'They uncorked the White House champagne' that weekend because nothing had happened. We got through the weekend … nothing had happened.

"But I did manage to have a conversation with a source that weekend. The person told me that there was some concern about an intercept that had been picked up. The incident that had gotten everyone's attention was a conversation between two members of Al Qaida. And they had been talking to one another, supposedly expressing disappointment that the United States had not chosen to retaliate more seriously against what had happened to the Cole. And one Al Qaida operative was overheard saying to the other, 'Don't worry; we're planning something so big now that the U.S. will have to respond.'

"And I was obviously floored by that information. I thought it was a very good story: (1) the source was impeccable; (2) the information was specific, tying Al Qaida operatives to, at least, knowledge of the attack on the Cole; and (3) they were warning that something big was coming, to which the United States would have to respond. This struck me as a major page one-potential story.

"I remember going back to work in New York the next day and meeting with my editor Stephen Engelberg. I was rather excited, as I usually get about information of this kind, and I said, 'Steve, I think we have a great story. And the story is that two members of Al Qaida overheard on an intercept (and I assumed that it was the National Security Agency, because that's who does these things) were heard complaining about the lack of American response to the Cole, but also … contemplating what would happen the next time, when there was, as they said, the impending major attack that was being planned. They said this was such a big attack that the U.S. would have to respond.' Then I waited.

"And Stephen said, 'That's great! Who were the guys overheard?'

"I said, 'Well, I don't know. I just know that they were both Al Qaida operatives.'

"'Where were they overheard?' Steve asked.

"Well, I didn't know where the two individuals were. I didn't know what countries they were in; I didn't know whether they were having a local call or a long-distance call.

"'What was the attack they were planning?' he said. 'Was it domestic, was it international, was it another military target, was it a civilian target?'

I didn't know.

'Had they discussed it?'

"I didn't know, and it was at that point that I realized that I didn't have the whole story. As Steve put it to me, 'You have a great first and second paragraph. What's your third?"'

Anatomy of a scoop

Stephen Engelberg confirms Miller's tale in all respects. Engelberg first mentioned the incident in an article by Douglas McCollam in the October 2005 edition of Columbia Journalism Review, which noted:


"Miller was naturally excited about the scoop and wanted the Times to go with the story. Engelberg, himself a veteran intelligence reporter, wasn't so sure. There had been a lot of chatter about potential attacks; how did they know this was anything other than big talk? Who were these guys? What country were they in? How had we gotten the intercept? Miller didn't have any answers, and Engelberg didn't think they could publish without more context. Miller agreed to try and find out more, but in the end, the story never ran."

In a recent interview, Engelberg expanded on his comments. "I recall thinking it made perfect sense at the time," Engelberg told us. "The Cole attack was out of character -- unlike the Africa embassy attacks, the Millennium plot, the earlier World Trade Center bombing.

"That weekend, pre-4th of July, everybody was nervous," said Engelberg. "Judy went down to check with the White House and the NSC types at the Old Executive Office Building and CTC. And she came back in and had the story. And I knew the source.

"Judy had two guys talking, but no names or details," Engelberg recalled. "One guy says, 'The U.S. didn't retaliate for the Cole.' And the other guy says the coming attack 'will be so big they're gonna have to retaliate.' But no details … Judy had the what but not the who and the where.


"I said, 'Check with the CIA, NSA, DIA,'" Engelberg remembered. "But we couldn't get anything that week."

Interview with Judith Miller:

"I realized that this information was enormously sensitive, and that it was going to be difficult to get more information, but that my source undoubtedly knew more. So I promised to Steve that I would go back and try to get more. And I did … try.

"He knew who my source was. He knew that the source was impeccable. I had also confirmed from a second source that such a conversation had taken place -- that there was such an intercept -- though my second source did not seem to know as much about the content of the intercept as the first source did. But that was enough for me to know that there was a good story there.

"But whoever knew about the 'who' and the 'where' was not willing tell me at that time. After the fact I was told that, 'The bad guys were in Yemen on this conversation.' I didn't know that at that time. I remember knowing that the person who'd told me seemed to know who had been overheard, but he was not about to share that information with me …

"And Washington being Washington, and the CT world being the CT world, I was soon off pursuing other things. I simply couldn't nail it down with more specificity. I argued at that time that it was worth going with just what we had, even if it was vague, that the fact that the Al Qaida was planning something that was so spectacular that we have to respond was worth getting into the paper in some way, shape or form. But I think Steve decided, and I ultimately agreed, that we needed more details. And I simply couldn't pry them loose.

"At the time I also had had a book coming out. Steve, Bill Broad and I were co-authors of a book about biological terrorism. So we were working flat out on that book trying to meet our deadline. I was desperately trying to get my arms around this series that we were trying to do on Al Qaida. I was having a lot of trouble because the information was very hard to come by. There was a lot going on. I was also doing biological weapons stories and homeland security stories. And in Washington, if you don't have a sense of immediacy about something, and if you sense that there is bureaucratic resistance to a story, you tend to focus on areas of less resistance.

"Our pub date was Sept. 10th. I remember I was very worried about whether or not the publisher was actually going to get copies of the books to the warehouses in time. Because of course, Steve, Bill and I had delivered the manuscript late -- everything was very late.

"The morning of Sept. 11, I was downtown about 12 blocks from the World Trade Center. I remember walking to a school around the corner with a very clear view of the World Trade Center, because it was just a few blocks away. And all I can remember thinking was, 'Are they going to get those books to the warehouses on time?' I was also trying to make up my mind who I was going to vote for in the New York Democratic Primary. And -- everybody says this -- it was one of most beautiful days in New York I ever remember!

"When I got to the Baxter School, there were people standing out in front of the school, pointing at the World Trade Center, which was on fire, and I looked up. I asked what had happened, and they said that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. There was an awfully big gash in the building and I didn't see the plane, but there was an awful lot of smoke and I thought, 'Gosh! That was a pretty big space for a Cessna or something to have gotten into that building.'

"And here I had spent my whole summer, my whole past year thinking about an Al Qaida attack, and I yet wouldn't let myself believe that it was happening right then. I simply wouldn't believe. So I turned around without voting, without going into the building, and I started to call my CT sources in Washington, and I remember reaching the counter-terrorism office at the White House, and I was told that nobody was there, that all of the principals were out giving speeches or doing something else. And I said, 'OK, I'll try to call back in 15 minutes.'

"By that time I walked to my house a couple of blocks away, and I heard a boom, and I turned around and once again I didn't see the plane, but I saw the fire shoot out from the building from the plane.

"It was only then, after the second plane hit, that I allowed myself to believe that it really was a terrorist attack -- the attack that we had been so worried about for so long. And I think I was kind of amazed at myself, at the power of denial. When you don't want to believe something's happening, it does not, it's not happening! And I think that was what was going on in the intelligence community. The idea that Al Qaida would actually strike in the United States, not at the Cole or overseas, or in Jordan as part of a warning bombing plot, but here in the U.S., that was just kind of unthinkable! People were in the state of denial, as I was that morning.

"I remember calling back the White House that morning, and at that point, I talked to the secretary in the counter-terrorism office and she said: 'Nobody's here, Judy, and we're evacuating this building. I gotta go. Bye.' At that point, I hadn't even heard about the Pentagon attack, but I knew.

"It was very strange … it was a strange feeling to have written a series that virtually predicted this, and to have had not a single other reporter call, not a single other newspaper follow up on some of the information that we had broken in that series. At the time of the series, which was published in January 2001, we had information about chemical and biological experiments at Al Qaida camps.

We had gotten the location of the camps, we had gotten satellite overhead of the camps. I had interviewed, in Afghanistan, Al Qaida-trained people who said that they were going to get out of the 'prison' in Afghanistan and go back and continue their jihad. They had talked about suicide bombings. We had Jordanian intelligence say that attempts to blow up hotels, roads and tourist targets in Jordan over the millennium was part of the Al Qaida planned attack. And yet I guess people just didn't believe it. But I believed it. I believed it absolutely, because I've covered these militants for so long. There was nothing they wouldn't do if they could do it."

The one that got away

Like Miller, Steve Engelberg, now managing editor of the Oregonian in Portland, still thinks about that story that got away. "More than once I've wondered what would have happened if we'd run the piece?" he told the CJR. "A case can be made that it would have been alarmist, and I just couldn't justify it, but you can't help but think maybe I made the wrong call."

Engelberg told us the same thing. "On Sept. 11th, I was standing on the platform at the 125th Street station," he remembered ruefully more than four years later. "I was with a friend, and we both saw the World Trade Center burning and saw the second one hit. 'It's Al-Qaida!' I yelled. 'We had a heads-up!' So yes, I do still have regrets."

So does Judy Miller.

"I don't remember what I said to Steve on Sept. 11," she concluded in her interview with us. "I don't think we said anything at all to each other. He just knew what I was thinking, and I knew what he was thinking. We were so stunned by what was happening, and there was so much to do, and I think that was the day in which words just fail you.

"So I sometimes think back, and Steve and I have talked a few times about the fact that that story wasn't fit, and that neither one of us pursued it at that time with the kind of vigor and determination that we would have had we known what was going to happen. And I always wondered how the person who sent that [intercept] warning must have felt.

"You know, sometimes in journalism you regret the stories you do, but most of the time you regret the ones that you didn't do."

http://www.alternet.org/story/36388/

inside-job? ja, aber nur indem man es zugelassen hat......
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 18.05.2006, 12:34   #29
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Standard

Some Eyewitness Accounts Flight 77 Crash at the Pentagon, Sept. 11, 2001






"On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. 'I thought, "There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"' he said. Before he could process that thought, he saw 'a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics.'"
- "Our Plane Is Being Hijacked." Washington Post, 12 Sep 2001


"I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning at about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness I wasn't going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next..."
- "U.S. Under Attack: Your Eyewitness Accounts." BBC News, 14 Sep 2001


"As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead. I came around the bend and there was the Pentagon billowing smoke, flames and debris, blackened on one side and with a gaping hole where the airplane had hit it."
- "Eyewitness at the Pentagon." Human Events, 17 Sep 2001


"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002


"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle—almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course.'"
- "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001


"'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex. 'Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards,' he said."
- "Witnesses and Leaders on Terrorist Attacks." CNN, 11 Sep 2001


"'(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target,' said Fred Gaskins, who was driving to his job as a national editor at USA Today near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150 feet overhead. 'It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001


"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001


"'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the crash. 'There is billowing black smoke.'"
- "America's Morning of Terror." ChannelOne.com, 2001


"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001


"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001


"A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001


"Steve Eiden, a truck driver, had picked up his cargo that Tuesday morning in Williamsburg, Va., and was en route to New York City and witnessed the aftermath. ... He took the Highway 95 loop in the area of the Pentagon and thought it odd to see a plane in restricted airspace, thinking to himself it was odd that it was flying so low. 'You could almost see the people in the windows,' he said as he watched the plane disappear behind a line of trees, followed by a tall plume of black smoke. Then he saw the Pentagon on fire, and an announcement came over the radio that the Pentagon had been hit."
- "Sept. 11, the Day America Changed." The Baxter Bulletin, 2001


"Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the District of Columbia. I don’t know what made me look up, but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating. My first thought was just 'No, no, no, no,' because it was obvious the plane was not heading to nearby Reagan National Airport. It was going to crash."
- "September 11 Remembered." University Week, 4 Oct 2001


"Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,' he said. 'There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.'"
- "Pentagon Crash Eyewitness Comforted Victims." MDW News Service, 28 Sep 2001


"'I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the building,' said Carla Thompson, who works in an Arlington, Va., office building about 1,000 yards from the crash. 'I saw an indentation in the building and then it was just blown-up up—red, everything red,' she said. 'Everybody was just starting to go crazy. I was petrified.'"
- "Terrorists Attack New York, Pentagon." Los Angeles Times, 12 Sep 2001


"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."
- Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA Today


"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 2002
"Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. 'I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd., listening to the the news, to WTOP, and from my left side-I don't know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,' said the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. 'It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. I'd just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, "That's not going to make it to National Airport." And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black, thick smoke.'"
- "Terrorist 'Situation'." American Lawyer Media, 11 Sep 2001

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

alle gekauft, gefakt oder auf Droge, alles geplant .....


syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 18.05.2006, 12:52   #30
Förster
*****
 
Benutzerbild von Förster
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 58.581
Standard

__________________
Zur Chartshow
Förster ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Förster die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Antwort Gehe zum letzten Beitrag



Themen-Optionen

Gehe zu



Aktuelle Uhrzeit 09:30
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © stock-channel.net